Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc

analyzing evidence of employer's good-faith efforts of anti-discrimination in context of Rule 50(b) motion | considering management’s failure to respond effectively to complaints as evidence of lack of good faith | analyzing evidence of employer’s good-faith efforts of anti-discrimination in context of Rule 50(b) motion | “Kolstad’s imputation holding was not such a sudden shift as to require, in fairness, giving Wal-Mart an opportunity to present additional evidence.” | Rule 50(b) motions may not raise issues not raised under Rule 50(a), but new grounds may be considered where, as here, the non-movant does not object | “Kolstad explains, first, that no ‘egregiousness’ requirement exists for § 1981a(b)(1) punitive damages beyond the statutory ‘malice’ or ‘reckless disregard’ regarding actions’ legality under Title VII.” | “When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal ... this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.” | Wal-Mart’s policy of encouraging employees to contact management with grievances did not suffice to establish good faith efforts as a matter of law, in light of Wal-Mart’s failure to respond effectively to plaintiff’s complaints | "When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal . . . this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard." | “When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal . . . this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.” | “When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal . . . this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.” | treating good-faith enforcement as affirmative defense | discussing “the good-faith de fense”

                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                               No. 97-10685


     JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee
                                         Cross-Appellant

     versus

     WAL-MART STORES, INC, ET AL

                                         Defendants

     WAL-MART STORES, INC

                                         Defendant-Appellant
                                         Cross-Appellee

                               - - - - -
        Appeals from the United States District Court for the
                      Northern District of Texas
                               - - - - -

 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
   (Opinion September 24, 1998, 5 Cir., 1998, _____F.3d____)

                           (February 26, 1999)

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ,
       WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES,
       STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

          A member of the Court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

          IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.                The

Clerk    will   specify   a   briefing     schedule   for   the   filing    of

supplemental briefs.

________________________
Chief Judge King is recused and did not participate in this
decision.